‘Green Real Deal’: Matt Gaetz Is Preparing The GOP Answer To Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

Tim Pearce | Energy Reporter

GOP Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz is preparing to introduce a “Green Real Deal” resolution to contrast with Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, according to Politico.

Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her resolution on Feb. 7 and immediately faced criticism for its scope and potential cost, which reached toward tens of trillions of dollars. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez Bungled Green new Deal’s Release. Her Staff Took Its Webpage Offline)

A draft of Gaetz’s resolution, obtained by Politico, recognizes risks to the U.S. from climate change, citing Department of Defense reports that identify certain military assets and bases as at risk to rising sea levels and increasing severe weather events, such as hurricanes.

“Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth,” the draft says.

Energy lobbyists have seemingly received copies of Gaetz’s resolution are beginning to line up behind it in support.

“Congressman Gaetz deserves to be applauded for taking the lead in crafting a bold resolution that identifies actionable climate solutions that will benefit America’s economy, environment, and national security,” Heather Reams, executive director of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, said in a statement.

Gaetz’s resolution pushes market-driven innovation and competition from companies developing green energy technology. It does not set any emission reduction goals.

The draft pledges “to reduce and modernize regulations so that clean energy technologies can be deployed, and compete.”

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1105468562276319232

In contrast to the Green New Deal, the draft Green Real Deal resolution takes a positive view on nuclear energy. Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution did not mention the energy sector, causing some controversy among pro-nuclear energy experts.

Gaetz’s legislation takes a wide-ranging approach to cutting emissions through investing in fossil fuel carbon capture technology, new and updated nuclear and hydropower placements, making the power grid more efficient and granting energy companies improved access to public lands.

The resolution pledges to “empower individuals, states, and the marketplace” to develop and disseminate new technology that will cut the United States’ carbon emissions.

Follow Tim Pearce on Twitter

From The Daily Caller

0 0 vote
Article Rating
154 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hunter
March 25, 2019 6:06 am

Typical RINO crap.

Charles Higley
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 6:22 am

They should start with getting rid of the EPA Endangerment finding on CO2. Then, the stupid ideas, like carbon sequestration, will disappear for having no reasoning behind them.

Reply to  Charles Higley
March 25, 2019 7:13 am

Correct, Mr. Higley,
about the endangerment finding.

Adding CO2 to the air actually benefits our planet.

Only an ignorant person would call it “pollution”.

We have 300 years experience with global
warming, since an unusually cold period
in the late 1600s — and it’s been 100% good news
all the way to today.

Our current climate
is the best it has been
for humans and animals
since the Little Ice Age centuries,
with frequent cold periods.

Our planet is also greening from more CO2.

Only FUTURE global warming is always claimed
to be 100% bad news … by the smarmy leftists
who don’t carte about the environment
( or they would not ignore pollution in Asia ),
seeking to scare people into allowing them
to micromanage the world !

There is no climate problem
that needs to be solved,
except for air pollution
in many large Asian cities.

I don’t hear much talk about that.

If the US adopted
the Green Bad Dream,
which is not even close
to being feasible in ten years (or 20),
and spent $100 trillion over ten years
(that we don’t have), global CO2 levels
would still continue to rise (and those
people scared by CO2 should care about that
— I personally love more CO2 in the air,
although I’m still waiting
for the promised global warming
to reach cold Michigan, USA ! )

It’s really annoying that a dingbat
like Alexandria Occasionally Coherent
is being paid $174,000 a year by
the US taxpayers … but perhaps that’s a
low price to pay for someone so stupid she
could severely disrupt the Dumbocrat party,
and guarantee Trump gets four more years.

My climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

GREG in Houston
Reply to  Charles Higley
March 25, 2019 7:23 am

Charles you are certainly correct about carbon capture. The expense of treating and dehydrating emissions streams, extracting CO2, recompressing it to quasi-liquid state, and pumping it deep underground for “eternal” storage is huge. The only way it become economical is …wait for it… when it is used for enhanced oil recovery in nearly-depleted oil reservoirs.

Reply to  GREG in Houston
March 25, 2019 8:02 am

And *that* is a very good use for it…

The initiation of CO2 injection very quickly boosted oil production in the WEST RANCH (41-A & 98-A CONS.) unit from about 100 BOPD to nearly 4,000 BOPD.

Dan
Reply to  GREG in Houston
March 25, 2019 8:08 am

There is an alternative to conventional carbon capture that Exxon-Mobile is working with Fuel Cell Energy on:
https://www.fuelcellenergy.com/recovery-2/recovery-2/

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Dan
March 25, 2019 3:14 pm

But, why? More atmospheric CO₂2 is a good thing, not a bad thing. Warmer winters are a good thing, not a bad thing, since more people die of cold than of heat, and it appears the hot extremes aren’t getting any hotter, and are probably declining. Warmer nights are a good thing, not a bad thing, because many plants do not even start to grow until the nights consistently stay above certain temperatures. Why on earth would we want to remove any more CO₂ from our atmosphere than we absolutely have to? In fact, for things that need CO₂, aren’t there cheaper ways to produce it than trying to condense/compress it out of the atmosphere? Get some limestone and pour vinegar over it, for example, doesn’t that release CO₂? A lot cheaper? So again I ask you, why?

Paul Stevens
Reply to  Charles Higley
March 25, 2019 11:53 am

Recently published study exposes EPA fraudulent research for the sham it is.
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/RTPPM25TSYoung072517.pdf

Duke University is paying the US Federal Government $112.5 million for fraudulent research results used in over two dozen medical papers.
https://junkscience.com/2019/03/duke-university-pays-feds-112-5-million-in-science-fraud-case/

steve case
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 6:24 am

hunter March 25, 2019 at 6:06 am
Typical RINO crap.

That’s what I was thinking

Juan Slayton
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 7:04 am

AKA ME TOO REPUBLICANS for those of us who go back to the 50’s.

But I’ve had about enough of the Green Ordeal.

Reply to  Juan Slayton
March 25, 2019 7:16 am

Juan Slayton:
How dare you come up with the brilliant
name: “Green Ordeal”.

I came up with the “Green Bad Dream”
after at least 20 minutes of
deep concentration …
… which is not as good !

Reply to  Richard Greene
March 25, 2019 8:38 am

Green Screwed Deal

Warren
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 25, 2019 1:37 pm

Very good!

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 27, 2019 4:15 pm

Green Screw-Steal

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 25, 2019 4:22 pm

I’ve been calling it the Red New Deal. I think we all understand the implication.

Joe
Reply to  Richard M
March 25, 2019 4:50 pm

And for the Scientologists, it could be the Xenu Deal.

Soul-stealing galactic overlords never give you a fair deal, obviously.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Joe
March 25, 2019 4:53 pm

The Green Leap Forward?

damp
Reply to  Richard M
March 25, 2019 5:34 pm

All New Deals have been “red,” so far.

DonM
Reply to  Juan Slayton
March 25, 2019 9:06 am

Green Ordeal would/does describe Ocasio crap.

If implemented, “Green Ordeal” will also, in the future, describe the Matt Geartz version.

Same as the Clean Water Act & the Clean Air Act & the Endangered Species Act; it will morph into something to big to control. Tools to simply restrict, rather than simply regulate.

Anything like this needs to have a sunset clause so it can be re-worked to get rid of the unseen consequences (for example, interpretation that ALL drainage ways (year-round, seasonal, ephemeral, ditches, etc.) fall under jurisdiction of the Feds.

bonbon
Reply to  DonM
March 25, 2019 9:24 am

Green New Death is the definitve description – the birthstrikers got on the bandwagon.

Joe
Reply to  Juan Slayton
March 25, 2019 4:32 pm

Excellent! Juan, I also like “Greed, No Deal.”

commieBob
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 7:04 am

One tiny word makes all the difference.

… clean energy technologies can be deployed, and compete.

If renewable energy really is the answer to all the world’s problems then it should be able to out compete fossil fuels, etc. It shouldn’t need subsidies because it’s already supposed to be cheaper. Competition says the market will decide.

Rich Davis
Reply to  commieBob
March 25, 2019 6:34 pm

But they’re not planning to subsidize anymore, cb. They want to make unreliables (the proper term for what they call “renewables”) cheaper by taxing the piss out of anything that has carbon in it. That way $0.50/KW-h will be “cheaper” and therefore it will “compete”.

Not because it will actually solve anything, but because it will be another tax on something that has inelastic demand, like alcohol and tobacco, or highway tolls on the roads people must transit to get to work. Just a new source of revenue, and be assured, they may take in a trillion dollars a year, but they will still end up running bigger and bigger budget deficits handing more and more money over to their clients who don’t do anything productive for society, but vote for Democrats.

Bill Powers
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 7:11 am

Demoplicans and Republicrats use different language to advocate the same hobgoblins all the while our 22 Trillion real debt and 70 trillion in unfunded Social Welfare (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) born out of the 1st new deal is going to kill more people, when the collapse comes (and it is coming much faster than Global WArming), than all the hot weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, rising sea level deaths since the start of recorded time. These chicken littles are going to get blind sided by world wide economic collapse and it is going to take generations to recover from the devastation.

I have come to realize that CAGW is just a distraction from our real problems in an effort to prevent the masses from storming the Capitol to tar and feather these fat cat puppet politicians in suits/pant suits.

Gamecock
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 7:38 am

Correct, hunter. There is no reason to respond.

This makes -Cortez a leader.

Reply to  Gamecock
March 25, 2019 8:01 am

The Dumbocrat ? Alinsky way
to fight Ms. Occasionally Coherent
is to character attack her as a
climate science denier and general dingbat,
hoping she will attempt to fight back
and prove we are right !

It’s smarmy but this works.

You attack the character and then
declare she is too stupid to be
taken seriously for a real climate
science debate.

Not that Dumbocrats ever cared,
or knew, about science.

But they LOVE to call opponents
“science deniers” !

Gary
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 7:48 am

Another example of why the GOP is the Stupid Party. Take a foolish Democrat idea, water it down, and advance the Democrat cause another notch.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Gary
March 25, 2019 8:05 am

I liken Washington politics to an airplane being piloted from the tips of both wings, by pilots with opposite destinations.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 8:08 am

A “Real green deal” would be to invest in providing affordable energy to the third world and relieving those nations of tyrant rulership.

icisil
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 8:24 am

Abort. The right needs to stay away from the term “green” and reframe/redefine it to mean wet behind the ears, inexperienced, immature, etc. Then propose a Great New Deal (GND) based on reality. Co-opt GND, redefine it, offer a better GND.

J Mac
Reply to  icisil
March 25, 2019 9:34 am

Very good, icisil!

Joel Snider
Reply to  icisil
March 25, 2019 10:52 am

Or ‘greed’.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joel Snider
March 25, 2019 2:23 pm

-1

Joel Snider
Reply to  Bryan A
March 25, 2019 2:28 pm

Just to be clear – I intended ‘green’ to translate to ‘greed’ – not Icisil’s suggestion.

icisil
Reply to  Bryan A
March 25, 2019 7:40 pm

I knew what you meant

Reply to  Joel Snider
March 25, 2019 2:28 pm

MAGAND
Make America Great Again New Deal.

Offered for nothing.
Auto

D. Anderson
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 10:11 am

“aetz’s resolution pushes market-driven innovation and competition from companies developing green energy technology.”

If it’s really market-driven it doesn’t need a “push” from the Federal Government.

Joel Snider
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 10:50 am

‘Typical RINO crap.’

Exactly – basically furthering all Progressive agenda-items – just trying to do it more frugally.

The enablers.

D Anderson
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 11:25 am

Swamp Republicans have this magical distorted view of how markets work. We will tell you what we need, you, markets, figure out how to get it for us. Then we’ll take half the profits because, come on, it was our idea.

If we spout the magic word “market” enough the bubbas will buy our B.S.

Rhoda R
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 11:30 am

Gaetz is no RINO. But he seems to be listening to some. He’s my Rep and I’ve just emailed him over this nonsense.

markl
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 11:34 am

+1

Tom Abbott
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 5:37 pm

I wouldn’t characterize Matt Gaetz as a RINO.

He is correct on every conservative issue I have heard him expound upon.

On climate change, I don’t agree with the way he characterizes it:

““Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth,” the draft says.”

This statement assumes CAGW is real, when there is no evidence of such.

Possibly Gaetz is not an alarmist but has just worded his draft this way to bring in a wider group of supporters from the real RINO’s and the Democrats.

But still, it is wrong to assume CAGW is real. We shouldn’t give credence to the assertion, and the draft does just that.

WXcycles
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2019 11:26 pm

He’s too silly and gullible to be passing law then.

Jim
Reply to  hunter
March 25, 2019 5:39 pm

A majority of the Senators that are behind this scheme voted against the President’s authority to declare a national emergency to build a border wall. Where TF do they get the authority to ruin the only sector of the economy that has actually created lots and lots and lots of well paying jobs for working class Americans in the last 10 years? Gosh, how smart do you have to be to be a U.S. Senator these days?

Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:07 am

Coal in the US is on the way out my friends – this is a great time to celebrate the passing of a obsolete source of energy! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/25/coal-more-expensive-wind-solar-us-energy-study

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:14 am

It’s the Guardian, and you expect anybody to take the article seriously.

bonbon
Reply to  mark from the midwest
March 25, 2019 9:31 am

Probably fact-checked by Integrity Initiative and Rapid Response Unit’s Fiona Bartosch with 800 million Stg to rapidly put the media right.
Best CO2 money can buy.

Reply to  mark from the midwest
March 25, 2019 2:31 pm

mark from the midwest
March 25, 2019 at 6:14 am

“It’s the Guardian, and you expect anybody to take the article seriously.”

Hey – the parrot will, when the bottom of its cage is covered in Grauniad droppings like that.

Auto

Marcus
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:15 am

The Guardian ?…..ROTFLMAO

Latitude
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:16 am

“For demand, too many confuse the crucial difference between “growing less slowly” or remaining “buoyantly very high” versus “shrinking” or “declining.” Similar to U.S. oil demand, China’s coal consumption aligns with the first two. While it could indeed be said that Chinese coal demand has been relatively flat for a few years now, importantly, it hasn’t been falling in the absolute sense.

For production, China’s December coal output was 2.1% higher than it was in 2017, hitting the highest level in over three years.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/01/23/coal-is-not-dead-china-proves-it/#325cfa7765fa

Rich Davis
Reply to  Latitude
March 25, 2019 7:00 pm

but can those numbers be believed? Which is easier for the Chinese government? To tell naive westerners that their coal consumption is flat or dropping when it is really accelerating through the roof, or to actually reduce coal consumption and install unreliable energy? It’s also totally illegal to sell pirated videos or counterfeit brands. Believe that one too?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:18 am

Yay!

Shut down all coal and gas power plants and replace them with solar and wind power plants immediately!

Ni subsidies required!

tty
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:25 am

Just one little difference: coal works, wind and solar doesn’t.

And coal in the US may be on the way out but exports are rising….

https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/

Reply to  tty
March 25, 2019 7:35 am

And it’s on it’s way out very, very slowly.

griff
Reply to  David Middleton
March 25, 2019 10:24 am

Not in the UK… all coal power will be gone by 2025… most by 2023

Reply to  griff
March 25, 2019 10:31 am

The UK’s importance in the global energy picture…

Joel Snider
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2019 10:55 am

Polly want a cracker, Grift?

Reply to  David Middleton
March 28, 2019 9:24 am

Regarding the future of coal: “And it’s on it’s way out very, very slowly.”

David, you continuously mistake the EIA’s fantasies of the future for reality. It does not reflect well on your analytical capabilities.

https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2018/02/whos-in-fantasy-land.html

https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2019/03/eia-aeo-2019-projections-versus-mab-yours-truly.html

Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 28, 2019 9:45 am

EIA’s fantasies vs your fantasies… not a tough call. There aren’t enough nuke plants in the pipeline to allow coal to go away quickly and natural gas build out will barely keep up with demand growth and the slow loss of coal and nuke plants.

Although, the EIA did miss the whole shale revolution…

So, they’re far from perfect.

Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 29, 2019 11:14 am

“EIA’s fantasies vs your fantasies… not a tough call.”

It’s the EIA’s fantasies vs my reality. But you’re right, it’s not a tough call.

David, you believe the EIA’s fantasies are real because you’re ignorant. You clearly know virtually nothing about the electric power generation industry (or transportation, for that matter). Why? Because you’ve obviously felt you had better things to do than learn. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to demean those who actually know something about the subject(s).

If you’re actually interested in not being ignorant, let’s start local. Here is a wonderful Wikipedia page that contains a list of 15 coal-fired power plants operating in Texas. (As well as a list of four that shut down just in 2018!) The Wikipedia table also contains the plant capacities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Texas

Look at that list, do some research, and tell me which of the 15 coal-fired plants you think will still be operating (and burning coal…not natural gas!) in 2050, and estimate the total gigawatt-hours you think they will produce from burning coal in 2050.

Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 29, 2019 2:21 pm

“It’s the EIA’s fantasies vs my reality. But you’re right, it’s not a tough call.”

The future is not reality. Anyone who thinks that their predictions of the future are reality is a fracking moron.

Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 30, 2019 5:17 am

All of these power plants will probably still be burning coal in 2050…

Wikipedia list from Sierra Club…
Name Location Capacity (MW)
Coleto Creek Fannin 632
Fayette La Grange, in Fayette County 1,625
Gibbons Creek Grimes County 480
Harrington Potter County 1,080
Limestone Jewett 1,706
Martin Lake Rusk County 2,250
Oak Grove Robertson County 1,600
Oklaunion Wilbarger County 650
Pirkey Hallsville 721
Sandy Creek Riesel 925
J.K. Spruce Bexar County 1,444
Tolk Lamb County 1,067
Twin Oaks Robertson County 350
W. A. Parish Greater Houston 2,697
(units 5 to 8)
Welsh Mount Pleasant, Texas 1,056

Particularly W.A. Parrish, which is providing CO2 for the West Ranch oilfield EOR project.

Planned coal-fired power plant retirements from EIA.
Year Entity Name Plant Name Generator ID  (MW) Technology
2019 Texas Municipal Power Agency Gibbons Creek 1 470 Conventional Steam Coal
2024 City of San Antonio – (TX) J T Deely 1 420 Conventional Steam Coal
2024 City of San Antonio – (TX) J T Deely 2 420 Conventional Steam Coal
2036 Southwestern Public Service Co Harrington 1 339 Conventional Steam Coal
2037 Southwestern Public Service Co Tolk 1 532 Conventional Steam Coal
2037 Southwestern Public Service Co Tolk 2 535 Conventional Steam Coal
2038 Southwestern Public Service Co Harrington 2 339 Conventional Steam Coal
2040 Southwestern Public Service Co Harrington 3 340 Conventional Steam Coal

Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 31, 2019 6:31 pm

The always-clueless David Middleton writes,

“All of these power plants will probably still be burning coal in 2050…”

He then lists 15 plants.

You wanna bet, you ignorant twit?

Reply to  Mark Bahner
April 1, 2019 8:14 am

On re-reading, it occurs to me that possibly you were making fun of yourself with the reply, “All of these power plants will probably still be burning coal in 2050…”

I thought the “Next time do a little research” was directed at me, which is why I took such offense.

But if you were indeed making fun of yourself (or of me), my question still stands: Out of those 15 plants, which do you think will still be burning coal to produce electricity in the year 2050?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:46 am

“a obsolete”

I’d rather we said goodbye to poor grammar.

lee
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 6:52 am

And yet the EU is backing away from renewables at a great rate of knots. Why is that?

Editor
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 7:09 am

The article is full crap since Coal industry has a far smaller workforce than Wind and Solar power, meaning it is more efficient in dollars per Kilowatt, which translates to a better economic value.

The main cause of their reduction was from NG, which is cheaper to run and for consumers to buy, but they both share the same capability of delivering STEADY baseload power 24/7 that Wind and Solar never can.

Coal power will be around for decades to come, that is a reality you have to accept.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 25, 2019 7:42 am

The only smart way to cut back on coal is to burn municipal wastes to produce electricity.

H.R.
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 25, 2019 8:35 am

Pop, we had a “Cash-burning Powerplant”** in our fair city… for a while. It would explode from time to time because something that shouldn’t have been burned got through the sorting process.

It was down more often than running, if not due to an explosion then due to a shortage of suitable trash to burn; you can’t schedule burnable waste like you can shipments of coal. It cost more to operate due to the sorting process and the unsuitable material had to go to a landfill, anyhow.

After millions to build it and millions in annual operating losses, our politicians made that rare commonsense decision to cut the losses instead of doubling down on a boondoggle, and spent a little over a million dollars to raze it to the ground.

It will be at least another generation before the memory of the Cash-burning Powerplant is gone and some bright young guilt-ridden politician tries it again.

**Actually called that by most citizens and the local papers, radio, and TV. I can’t recall the politician who pulled the plug on that fiasco, but he did get bonus points from the public for doing it.

observa
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 7:26 am

“Coal in the US is on the way out my friends”

Could be in the short run-
“Coal plants have suffered due to rising maintenance costs, including requirements to install pollution controls. Meanwhile, the cost of solar and wind has plummeted as the technology has improved. Cheap and abundant natural gas, as well as the growth of renewables, has hit coal demand, with the EIA reporting in January that half of all US coalmines have shut down over the past decade.”

Only to be replaced by gas which you have to get rid of but can’t and if you switch energy demand from coal to gas sooner or later you’ll reach the coal gasification price as you drive up the demand and price of gas. So won’t be in the long run by shuffling the deck chairs.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  observa
March 25, 2019 12:47 pm

@observa;

So won’t be in the long run by shuffling the deck chairs.

That may be true, but the net of converting to gas now and reconverting to coal later could still lead to high profits/lower costs over the long haul. That’s what engineering economics is all about.

observa
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
March 25, 2019 4:13 pm

These watermelons wouldn’t know a level playing field if they were standing on one. It’s possible to level a CO2E tax on all players if you could trust them to offset taxing elsewhere like income taxing. Then any generator can only tender electrons to the grid they can guarantee 24/7/365 but where does that leave their precious wind and solar? Having to invest massively in CO2E taxed storage or partnering with CO2E taxed thermal and paying them their just insurance premia to up their average tender. ie to even get wind up to around 30% of its average installed capacity- https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2019/february

How much to say bye bye peaks and fill in those troughs and grab the midday duck curve with solar to offset zilch at night or all those overcast days? Way beyond their little pin heads and their solar and wind is cheaper than coal meme with one of the purest forms of State sponsored dumping imaginable.

MarkW
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 7:40 am

Those studies have been well and thoroughly refuted. However the trolls will continue to tout them.
The studies ignore the fact that wind and solar are heavily subsidized.
The studies completely ignore the cost of back up power that is needed when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
The studies completely ignore the mandates that force power companies to use wind and solar first, which makes all other power sources more expensive.

In other words, the studies sought to prove a point, and ignored everything that didn’t support the point they were paid to prove.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
March 25, 2019 10:57 am

‘Those studies have been well and thoroughly refuted. However the trolls will continue to tout them.’

Yep – Progressives adhere tightly to Goebbels’ principals.
Repetition is literally all they’ve got.

William Astley
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 9:19 am

Fake engineering is sad and pathetic.

How much does solar and wind power really ‘cost’? i.e. Include all costs.

If solar and wind were ‘cheaper’ than coal then Germany would not have among the most expensive electrical prices in the world.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/28/german-electricity-price-projected-to-quadruple-by-2020-to-over-40-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/

Currently German power costs about 30 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour, and so are among the highest worldwide. The price is projected to soar another 50% rise to 45 cents by 2020. That would make German power 4 times more expensive than US power, and more than double that of France. This poses a real threat to German economic competitiveness.

Wind and solar is cheap if you ignore the fact that total energy produced is for example in Germany less than 20% of the nameplate rating.

The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany).

When the cult of CAGW quote green power ‘costs’ they quote power availability. A single wind turbine turning or solar panel output on a cloudy winter day is green power ‘available’.

More power sources requires new power lines and forces on/off/on/off operation of other power sources which results in roughy 10% to 15% loss of power source and grid efficiency. (Requires sending electrical power long distances.)

https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-electricity-retail/german-household-power-prices-at-record-high-verivox-idUSL8N1MZ30X

The price of a kilowatt hour (kWh) on average has reached a new all-time high of 28.18 euro cents (33 US cents) … this means power has become 3 percent more expensive compared with the previous year,” Verivox said in a statement.

Some 20 percent alone go into the renewable energy surcharge under the EEG law, making it the biggest single item to fund Germany’s transition to fossil-free power.

The run-away expansion of wind turbines and solar panels has made German prices the highest in Europe since 2013, not just because of surcharges but because more volatile green power capacity also necessitates new transmission grids and higher costs to manage them.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
March 25, 2019 10:54 am

It’s hardly obsolete – is it, Ivan? Cheapest most efficient energy out there.
Just another label by green idiot who makes up his own reality to suit his bigotries.

Coach Springer
March 25, 2019 6:15 am

So he fell for the trap.

Steve O
Reply to  Coach Springer
March 25, 2019 7:52 am

Yes, the idiot. Now we’re going to have a conversation on something that should be mocked.

icisil
Reply to  Coach Springer
March 25, 2019 8:47 am

No, he’s a plant, i.e., pretends to be a Republican while working for the Democrat agenda. This is part of their methodology – Democrats offer something totally ridiculous and extreme that will be rejected, while getting the Republicans to oppose them in the framework that the Democrats have devised. The only winning solution is to reject and ignore their calls to offer a response to their GND, or co-opt and redefine it as I mentioned above.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
March 25, 2019 9:00 am

And if anyone doubts that Gaetz is a Democrat operative, just look at what was recently revealed about the Justice Democrats’ plan to run Democrats as Republicans in low-voter-turnout red districts.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
March 25, 2019 9:07 am

Pay attention that the draft of Gaetz’s resolution was leaked to Politico – a leftist rag.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
March 25, 2019 9:21 am

““Congressman Gaetz deserves to be applauded for taking the lead in crafting a bold resolution that identifies actionable climate solutions that will benefit America’s economy, environment, and national security,” Heather Reams, executive director of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, said in a statement.”

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions is funded by leftist interests. Do you see how they do it?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/20029-gop-establishment-faking-right-funding-left

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/gop-dark-money_n_6566244.html

Hermit.Oldguy
Reply to  icisil
March 26, 2019 5:49 am

If the right adopts the policies of the left, it defeats itself.
If the right won’t adopt the policies of the left, the left just infiltrates the right and does it for them.

Carl
March 25, 2019 6:22 am

Can anyone cite a scientific source that shows rising sea levels? Serious question, not sarc.

Reply to  Carl
March 25, 2019 6:26 am

All of them show the globally averaged sea level to be rising at about 3 mm/yr. The debatable point is whether or not this is anomalous relative to what sea level was doing before Gorebal Warming.

tty
Reply to  Carl
March 25, 2019 6:29 am

Well, it is fairly well established from tide gauges that it has been rising by about 1.5 mm/yr (= 6 inches/century) since about 1850, though with very large local variations and no sign of any acceleration.

observa
Reply to  tty
March 25, 2019 7:47 am

CSIRO estimate 1.6mm/yr-
https://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
while NOOA estimate 1.7mm/yr as I recall but let’s not split hairs and you can immediately see variation of different tide gauges around the globe with that Port Arthur one registering for over 1.5 centuries averaging 0.85mm/yr and why the slight global estimate differences. Not exactly the stuff of Noah’s Ark and the doomsdayers but they’re a hysterical lot if not very historical

Reply to  tty
March 25, 2019 7:55 am

I should have specified that the ~3 mm/yr is the current rate. It has oscillated from ~1-3 mm/yr since the end of Neoglaciation.

Jevrejeva et al., 2014, a eustatically corrected sea level reconstruction from tide gauge data…

The rate since 1993 is no different than that of 1930-1950.

observa
Reply to  David Middleton
March 25, 2019 9:45 pm

And to what would you ascribe the geological tide gauge at Hallett Cove in South Australia that can show an average annual sea level rise of 16.25mm/yr over EIGHT THOUSAND years beginning around 15000 years ago David? CO2 from Aboriginal cooking fires and traditional burnoffs to flush out game? Do enlighten us all as to how those clever folk in lab coats with their computer models can extract the anthropogenic CO2 signal out of 1.6 or even 3 mm of annual sea level rise nowadays? Can you even tell us the percentage contribution of anthropogenic CO2 in the current rise?

Bear in mind here David that sea level rise is the one true temperature proxy to rule all their poxy proxies unless you believe the water is coming in from outer space or bubbling up from below the mantra-
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets
Still I wouldn’t put it past them given what they’re smoking.

observa
Reply to  observa
March 25, 2019 9:54 pm

It is of course the mantle but you’ll have to excuse the Freudian slip. LOL

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  tty
March 25, 2019 10:23 am

Silly discussions about how many millimeters (mm) per year that Sea Level have been rising since the 1860s …….. and/or….. how many tenths (1/10) or hundredths (1/100) of degrees F or C per year that near-surface air temperatures have been rising since the 1860s …… is akin to similar silly discussions about ……. “How many Angels can dance on the head of pin.

“DUH”, its common knowledge that “historical temperature records” are only accurate within +- 2 to 3 degrees of actual ……. and common sense thinking and logical reasoning should convince oneself that historical Tide Gauge records are only accurate within +- 2 to 3 centimeters of actual.

“DUH”, seafarers were worried about their boats “running aground”, ….. NOT worried about glaciers meltwater causing their ports and harbors to be submerged underwater.

To wit, excerpted from “history of tide guages”:

Sea-level measurements were made using simple measuring poles or “tide staffs” until around 1830, when self-recording gauges with mechanical floats and stilling wells were introduced.[5]

Tidal poles and float gauges were the primary means of sea-level measurement for over 150 years and continue to ………

Tide gauges have a practical application in the shipping and fishing industries where low or high tide levels can hinder or prohibit access to shallow bays or locations with bridges.

Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide_gauge

Norman Blanton
March 25, 2019 6:34 am

Don’t forget AOC tipped her real intent with the mistaken release of FAQs that included…
” language that called for economic security ‘for all who are unable or unwilling to work.'”

R Shearer
Reply to  Norman Blanton
March 25, 2019 7:19 am

And we’ll send them to free college where no test scores are used to gain entrance and no grades will be recorded.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  R Shearer
March 25, 2019 1:47 pm

We’ll make Bill de Blasio the chancellor and all will be right with the world.

observa
Reply to  Norman Blanton
March 25, 2019 7:57 am

‘for all who are unable or unwilling to work.’

That’s a novel way to shrink those pesky convoluted categories. A whole new meaning to the KISS principle.

Kevin kilty
March 25, 2019 6:43 am

Gaetz’s legislation takes a wide-ranging approach to cutting emissions through investing in fossil fuel carbon capture technology,…

Not completely free of magical thinking, though, I see…

Tom Halla
March 25, 2019 6:43 am

Oh, the US needs to review energy policy, and most of it is undoing the misguided policies of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Undoing the environmental review policies put into place by Carter would be a good start, as would removing the “endangerment finding” of Obama.

Jeff Alberts
March 25, 2019 6:43 am

“citing Department of Defense reports that identify certain military assets and bases as at risk to rising sea levels”

I live a few miles from a base that SHOULD be concerned about rising sea levels, if there was reason for concern. Whidbey Island NAS is right down on the water, maybe 6-10 feet above sea level. But, because Puget Sound has pretty calm waters, and I’ve never heard of a hurricane, or typhoon, in the Pacific this far north. But sea levels should be rising everywhere, right? As far as I know, Whidbey NAS has not undertaken to building massive sea walls or anything. Of course, walls don’t work…

John the Econ
March 25, 2019 6:50 am

Idiots. Instead of letting the GND stand alone in embarrassment, the RINOs give the gift of something for the left to focus attention on.

Good work, idiots. It’s as though you actually enjoy losing to incompetent communists.

MarkW
Reply to  John the Econ
March 25, 2019 7:45 am

There’s a breed of Republican who believe that the key to winning elections is to be just a little bit to the right of the Democrats.
They believe that this makes them the natural choice of anyone politically to the right of where ever they happen to position themselves today.
They believe that following the Democrats leftward swing they are capturing a bigger swath of the voting public.

John the Econ
Reply to  MarkW
March 25, 2019 1:52 pm

Unfortunately, you are right. Power over principle.

Pamela Gray
March 25, 2019 6:51 am

This is nonsense. I’ve lived through a 60+ years long climate variation cycle and have seen nothing unusual in the ordinary weather patterns one would expect at the top of a warm period. We will get warmer here and there. We will get colder here and there. And eventually, in 10s of thousands of years in the future, we will plunge into flora and fauna killing cold. No amount of expensive fancy energy projects will change that reality one bit. Not one bit.

A slightly less vacuously green response to that idiot woman’s vacuous machinations about her green plans makes the entire thing all the more ludicrous.

James Clarke
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 25, 2019 7:40 am

Excellent post, Pamela. I would only suggest that the “flora and fauna killing cold” will likely come withing the first 10,000 years, but that is of little consequence to your overall point: “This is nonsense.”

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 25, 2019 8:04 am

Ms. Gray:
Does this mean the world is not going to end in 12 years?
I was really worried.
But now I can enjoy the rest of my life.

Does “idiot woman’s vacuous machinations”
mean dingbat?

Michael Vose
March 25, 2019 6:52 am

There’s a lot to like in this resolution, such as its push for less regulation and for a reliance on free-market mechanisms. A declaration calling for the establishment of a panel like the presidential commission Trump is considering would make it better.

icisil
Reply to  Michael Vose
March 25, 2019 9:40 am

The Democrats modus operandi is to define a framework, and then coerce Republicans to operate within that framework that accomplishes the Democrat agenda (e.g., If you don’t like our Green New Deal (GND), propose your own!)

Winning: We reject your GND and refuse to discuss it – OR – We propose a Great New Deal (GND) that maximizes energy security

Losing: OK. Here’s our Green New Deal.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
March 25, 2019 9:44 am

“Losing: OK. Here’s our Green New Deal.”

Or the “Green Real Deal” as poser Gaetz calls it.

A C Osborn
March 25, 2019 7:07 am

It all went completely wrong with this absolute nonsense.
“A draft of Gaetz’s resolution, obtained by Politico, recognizes risks to the U.S. from climate change, citing Department of Defense reports that identify certain military assets and bases as at risk to rising sea levels and increasing severe weather events, such as hurricanes.

“Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth,” the draft says.”

It should have said “just as in the past WEATHER creates the same risks as it always has”.

A C Osborn
Reply to  A C Osborn
March 25, 2019 7:12 am

and it got worse.
“Gaetz’s legislation takes a wide-ranging approach to cutting emissions through investing in fossil fuel carbon capture technology”

How to instantly increase energy costs by 30%, the stupid burns.

R Shearer
Reply to  A C Osborn
March 25, 2019 7:23 am

It’s double or nothing. AOC is Thing 1 and Gaetz is Thing 2, each is destructive.

KS_Referee
Reply to  A C Osborn
March 25, 2019 9:38 am

CO2 capture has worked in two small scale electric generation plants in the US where due to specific conditions and needs, it seemed plausible yet at an incredible cost. It is not feasible in most locations.

I remember when our electric generation industry was first compelled to install emissions scrubber technology, mainly seeking to remove sulfur dioxide from emissions. Nationwide that regulation cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of $. The company I worked for shuttered several older coal plants because the costs could not be justified given the low energy output and the fact that these plants were in the latter part of their lifespan.

I remember it well yet today we have huge aircraft filling up with tanks of sulfur dioxide and releasing that chemical while flying high in the atmosphere. It’s almost as if there never was a concern about sulfur dioxide, rather that it was an all out assault on low cost, reliable energy production. How is this new assault on CO2 not just another assault on low cost energy production?

I am growing more and more weary of any science which appears to seek to drive any public policy. I simply cannot trust those involved to not be more driven by their political ideology than by actual science, especially when they attempt to further it with claims of, “the science is settled” and “scientific consensus” nonsense, as they shut down any attempt to falsify their supposed science.

It is a sad day in scientific history when we cannot trust the principal leaders of a particular scientific community because they have ruined historical data sets, and their own emails appear to demonstrate collusion and willful intent to defraud as they seek to drive public policy.

Everything needs to be audited and every bit of ANY science which even remotely seeks to drive any policy should be fully transparent.

But then again, that’s just MY opinion, for what it’s worth.

WXcycles
Reply to  KS_Referee
March 25, 2019 11:12 pm

It’s the public money that pushes that whole dynamic. Eliminate the public money going into the climate-science scam and the dysfunction will go away and the actual science will resume. Until that occurs the political corruption of science will not stop.

i.e. the people in all our national capitals who want to continue or expand the public money flowing into climate science are the same people who are pushing political corruption of science, so that they can politically exploit that corruption.

March 25, 2019 7:18 am

You don’t respond to tyranny with tyranny lite.

Call the GND what it is. It is communism. It would cost us our liberty.

There is no response other than to name it what it is, and reject it out of hand.

Gaetz is a fool, this how the democrats and the socialists have operated for decades propose a mile, and the (R)s give them a few yards. After a couple of decades they have the mile anyway.

Notice my critical does not mention the environment. That is because the GND isn’t about the environment, it is about socializing the energy, transportation and manufacturing sectors of the economy.

James Clarke
Reply to  John Mount
March 25, 2019 8:16 am

Well stated, John. Politics is said to require compromise, but this fact does not say anything about leading. Trump is the only one on the right actually leading the way and requiring the left to compromise with him. For decades, the right has just been reacting to the left, even when the right had the majority in Congress.

I think there are two main reasons for this. 1. The members of the right are generally more ‘civilized’ than the members of the left. They were raised to play by the rules, and they naturally believe that is what everyone wants to do. An analogy might be the British army against the American revolutionaries. The British conducted warfare in a ‘civilized’ way, with lines of soldiers efficiently releasing volleys at the enemy, as they stood completely exposed. Eventually, Washington learned to break the rules, with some very modest ‘guerilla warfare’ tactics, and emerged victorious. The British lost, partly because the expected the Americans to play by the rules. Modern Republicans are making the same mistake.

Secondly, the left owns the media, and Republicans believe the mainstream media influences the public. While there was some reason for this fear, the reason is diminishing, as more and more people are rejecting the mainstream media. Trumps election revealed that the media was losing much of its influence. The recent stream of outrageous screw-ups by the media has further alienated a large part of the public. Republicans should not be afraid of the press any longer. The people see through the media. It’s time that the politicians do the same.

Gaetz may think he will get some favorable press with his new proposal; appearing to be civilized in the debate, but he will not. The left is not playing by those rules, and the right is tired of the rope-a-dope behaviour of their representatives. The responses here on WUWT aptly prove the latter.

Aeronomer
March 25, 2019 7:31 am

I still say climate change is a big nothing-burger but at least this proposal isn’t COMPLETELY insane.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Aeronomer
March 25, 2019 7:54 am

But still insane.

WXcycles
Reply to  A C Osborn
March 25, 2019 11:17 pm

And is totally unnecessary, plus stops everyone dealing with real issues and policy, instead everything is derailed into more of this climate-scam nonsense. One giant Trojan Horse.

ladylifegrows
Reply to  Aeronomer
March 25, 2019 1:31 pm

That mechanism is how they get insane nonsense passed that destroys our Republic.

James Clarke
March 25, 2019 7:35 am

The Democrats want more power and control, and are using a fictitious climate crisis to get it. Weak Republicans respond by trying to diminish the Democrat power grab.

None of this has anything to do with actual climate or actual climate change!

jtom
Reply to  James Clarke
March 25, 2019 8:33 am

The only difference between Democrats and RINOs are the timetables they have for taking control of the country away from the people. That’s why they have both been apoplectic over Trump’s election, and the significant delaying of those schedules.

Flight Level
March 25, 2019 7:47 am

North-Korea has gone full-bore into solar & wind quite some time ago:
https://youtu.be/Li0gZxIslO0

Time has come for some to finally expat in the new green worker’s paradise ?

Guess we’ll find enough crews willing do to do the driving and ferrying of empty rides back for free.

Bruce Cobb
March 25, 2019 7:47 am

“…the draft Green Real Deal resolution…”
Tim Pearce misspelled “daft”. Matt Gaetz is a moron.

Pop Piasa
March 25, 2019 7:57 am

I don’t see any deal that involves heavy implementation of misnomered “renewables” as viable.
Nuclear and hydro are the only versions with sufficient energy density to be anything but consumer-side supplements or temporary stop-gap solutions in geographically practical locales.

I think that Republicans should simply stick to realist dialog and let AOC and the progressives wreck the Democrat party from within, or be driven out by centrists who can’t find solace siding with Republicans.

Joel Snider
March 25, 2019 7:57 am

Why does this guy feel Republicans need to respond at all?

This is the other half of the problem.

kent beuchert
March 25, 2019 8:45 am

If it doesn’t highlight molten salt small modular reactor technology, it’s the product of future energy ignorance.

John Endicott
Reply to  kent beuchert
March 25, 2019 12:18 pm

If it doesn’t highlight unicorn farts, it’s the product of future energy ignorance

Rod Evans
March 25, 2019 9:00 am

The way Alexander Occasio Cortex has been championed and generally elevated by the media, I imagined she must be quite a competent political performer and an impressive orator.
I saw a clip of her performing just yesterday, and was shocked to see she is just thick!
Why is everyone talking about such a lame brain as her?
Let her continue uninterrupted destroying herself and the Democrats, if they choose to support her insanity.
Let the COGS grind themselves to dust.

DonM
Reply to  Rod Evans
March 25, 2019 9:13 am

She Guevera

The original became an icon through image, fantasy, and ignorance.

The same lifestyle (image, fantasy, ignorance) describes the supporters of She Guevera.

Jeff B.
March 25, 2019 9:15 am

This article is not OK.
The end goal of the Progressives is not to solve climate issues. Because humans will likely never be able to change or stop the vast planet wide climate changes occurring over the Millenia. No it is instead to enact a statist / authoritarian control of large portions of the economy. So apologizing and legitimizing Green Cloaked Socialism is a non-starter and only emboldens the Progressives to continue their march for power.

March 25, 2019 10:09 am

Well I have developed technology using fossil fuels where we can reduce the CO2 emissions back to what they were in 1942-1943. That represents an 86.9% reduction, If global warming is caused by CO2 that is enough of a reduction to cause global cooling. If we want to play god, we need to prepare for overshoot. Solar and wind power are permanent reductions. With fossil fuels we can adjust the amount of CO2 that is released.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Richard Hood
March 25, 2019 2:33 pm

MODS:

Richard is continually thread-bombing with this nonsense that has nothing to do with the post; even more so than the rest of us occasionally do. He contributes nothing and is just fishing for suckers. He should be in permanent moderation until he reforms or gives up.

David Kahn
Reply to  Richard Hood
March 25, 2019 8:09 pm

Richard,

The problem is, what if global warming is NOT caused by CO2? And it looks like it’s not, according to something called “observations”. You seem unsure yourself. Given the uncertainty, is it right to force the poor and working class people to pay for this expensive technology?

n.n
March 25, 2019 10:10 am

People are not so green. This is another gray deal. We are not children anymore, politicians and activists should stop polluting the semantic habitat.

ResourceGuy
March 25, 2019 10:20 am

Stopped reading at (contrived/forced) military assessment.

March 25, 2019 10:49 am

It’s a very, very silly resolution.

Don B
March 25, 2019 10:49 am

Gaetz is an idiot.

David S
March 25, 2019 10:49 am

Like a lot of things the Republicans say; this is less dumb than the Democrats.

John Endicott
Reply to  David S
March 25, 2019 12:19 pm

But still extremely dumb

Joel O'Bryan
March 25, 2019 11:25 am

Yes RINO crap.

And in the GRD proposal are the core “goals” which are self-contradictory and written at a 3rd Grade level of detail (i.e. no detail just fluffy meaningless words strung together):

“it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green Real Deal—
(A) to achieve robust, economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions reductions
(B) to create more clean energy options through a commitment to innovation
(C) to position the United States as a global leader in clean energy and capture global markets as countries invest in low-and zero-emissions technologies
(D) to reduce and modernize regulations so that clean energy technologies can be deployed, and compete; and affirm that the government should not pick winners and losers
(E) to empower individuals, states, and the marketplace to act, invest, and implement the cleanest, lowest-emitting technologies available.

There is nothing substantive in the Gaetz GRD proposal. It is simply unicorns and fairy dust magic like AOC’s GND.
And most importantly, it is not the duty of the Federal government to create a GRD… last time I checked the US Constitution.

Sad that morons like Gaetz actually represents hundreds of thousand of more intelligent constituents in his district. No wonder Congress is such a mess. We keep electing morons, Left and Right.

Bruce Cobb
March 25, 2019 11:58 am

How about a MAGA Deal as a response? That would be up Trump’s alley. More coal, more oil, more gas, maybe more nuclear, and just say no to expensive unreliables.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 25, 2019 3:28 pm

Not just, “Drill, baby, drill!” and “Dig, baby, dig!” but “Burn, baby, burn!”

Gunga Din
March 25, 2019 1:13 pm

If Gaetz’s reply is longer than “Horse S**t”, then he’s wasted ink and pixels.
(AOS is “pixelated” … for real. https://youtu.be/kePxj6QLt8A )

Warren
March 25, 2019 1:43 pm

CO2 obsession . . . a disorder manifest in politicians and academics.

ferd berple
March 25, 2019 1:44 pm

Typical RINO crap.
==========
Agreed. History shows, without fail, the cleanest countries on earth are the ones with the greatest per capita wealth. The reason is simple, when you are poor, everything goes to feeding your family. When you are rich you have a surplus to you make sure your family has a good environment.

So, if you want to cut emission, make people wealthier. You cannot do this by taxation, because governments are inherently inefficient. You make people wealthy by increasing the efficiency of the economy, which is done by encouraging free markets and the rule of law.

The market makes people wealthy, so long as the legal system minimizes corruption. The delays and overheads in many legal systems encourages corruption, which corrupts the market, which brings poverty.

Look at the poorest countries in the world. Corruption is rampant. No one wants to invest, because there is the risk your investment will be stolen. What money there is is quickly siphoned off by the powerful and safeguarded in offshore accounts.

MMontgomery
March 25, 2019 2:30 pm

CO2 cannot be politicized by conceding it’s a pollution. It needs to be declared a global good and leave it the hell alone. The countervailing platform to Green Nucklehead Deal could be something about cleaning up; real pollutions, waterways, oceans. How about the world’s largest rivers in India and Brazil, etc. The trash in those rivers are to cry about.

Red94ViperRT10
March 25, 2019 3:22 pm

This has probably been said already, but this proposed resolution makes two fundamental errors. He seems to assume: 1) all of this will make any difference on atmospheric CO₂ levels, 2) there is actually a need to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels. Other than that, it’s perfectly fine. Well, except the counter-productive CC&S idea, there is never a good enough reason to do that!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
March 25, 2019 3:54 pm

Not a reply to your comment, but a year or so ago I was told that it’s easier on the Mods to just say “CO2” rather than CO whatever code you used to add the subscript “2”.
I don’t know why on the moderators end, but that’s what they said.
(I do remember that I felt a bit proud of myself when I figured out how to do a subscript “2” but it doesn’t seem to help them.)

High Treason
March 25, 2019 4:01 pm

AOC should be called to debate to justify her GND (Green Nincompoop Delusion.) No assumptions that the science is settled, no name-calling. Just the facts. First she has to show the actual evidence- all the conditions that justify the GND need to be put on the table. AOC must herself show that all the conditions that justify the GND are absolutely valid. As she is brain-dead and totally out of her depth, Alinsky’s rules on going out of your depth (in her case, a toddler’s swimming pool) will make her look like the idiot she is. Televise the debate for all to see what an idiot she is. Put Democrats on the spot if they support the GND-make them look like idiots along with AOC. Certainly, she is a prime target for Alinsky’s 13th rule. All those that jumped on the GND bandwagon will look very stupid indeed.

For the record, some of the points that must ALL be satisfied to even contemplate such radical and extremely expensive proposals are-
1) The warming/ “climate change” (whatever it really means without qualification) must be at historically unprecedented rates.
2) It MUST be predominantly caused by human CO2. As any natural component of CO2 rise is beyond human control, the human CO2 causation would have to be well over 50% -probably closer to 90%. It must thus be proven that human CO2 is what drives global temperatures/ “climate.” If natural forces play a significant role, attempts to tame nature will be either nearly impossible or so hideously expensive as to destroy humanity itself.
3) On balance, the global warming/ “climate change” MUST be dangerous. The inconvenient reality that higher CO2 (plant food) is demonstrably greening the planet must be included in to the equation to determine if the balance is tipping toward significantly more harm.
4) It MUST be that radical changes in human behavior will eliminate the dangerous component of global warming/ “climate change” and on-balance, be good for the planet. It is pointless to put vast quantities of human effort and funding in to pie-in-the-sky schemes that do not make a significant difference.
5) The cost of the measures must be weighed up against the good that those trillions could do for humanity in terms of other projects. I estimate that it would cost around 80 trillion to 3 D print aluminium water condensers to provide reliable drinking water and water for key nutritional crops (not wide field wheat and rice which are not high in nutritional value-just calories) for the entire human race. The cost is similar-which would benefit humanity more?-hundred of trillions to take plant food and thus human food out of the system on a belief that CO2 is a dangerous poison or to provide clean water for humans and core crops? Clean, reliable water and food security are 2 of the fundamental needs of humans. The other fundamentals are housing, clothing and entertainment.

ALL of these points MUST be satisfied to even contemplate the GND. If the GND falls foul of just one of the points, it is rubbish.

Is anyone out there able to produce solid evidence that all the conditions are being met to justify debating a GND? If the evidence is so overwhelming, then it is very reasonable that AOC be called to justify her Green Nincompoop Delusion. Like any scientific theory, just a single significant error in the data , methodology or modelling and it is debunked, the same applies here- insufficient(or no) proof that any of the conditions is being met, and it is out the window for the scheme.

Bring it on.

Wiliam Haas
March 25, 2019 4:53 pm

What the GOP needs to understand is that the climate change we have been experiencing is small and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So if the Green New Deal were implemented globally it would wave no effect on global climate but it would devastate the global economy and hundreds of millions would perish because of it. If we are anticipating disastrous future events it would be far better to take steps to improve the world’s economy rather than to take steps to ruin it.

John Boland
March 25, 2019 5:41 pm

Green New Deal…no thanks
Green Real Deal…no thanks
Green No Deal…now we’re talking

David Kahn
March 25, 2019 8:05 pm

I have an idea for them. They should forget trying to control the atmosphere, based on shaky “theories” about climate, and instead just do these 2 things:
1. Help out anybody in the world who gets displaced by climactic events, and
2. Help poor countries improve their standard of living so they will be resilient enough to cope with climate events.
There. We will be done with trying to manipulate the climate, which is guaranteed to be unsuccessful anyway since we don’t control China and India.

WXcycles
Reply to  David Kahn
March 25, 2019 10:55 pm

The Little Ice Age was the last “climate event”. The “climate event” before it was the Medieval Warm period. Weather events are not climate events. Stop falling for their distorted new-speak and their infinitely variable definitions of “climate”, and everything else they waffle about.

WXcycles
March 25, 2019 9:50 pm

How to sell an unsolicited pig to people who can’t afford it:

#1 – Send in Occasionally-Coherent to proclaim the end of all life on earth in 12 years time, and the need to immediately end all heavy industry and capitalism on a global scale, as the Leftist-Media plays it up as a revelation, instead of immediately rejecting it and her as completely insane.

This of course will attract no votes. But it was not supposed to, it was simply haggling. If you want to sell a pig at market for $50, the ask for $5,000, and get the Ultra-Lefty-Celeb-Media (ULCM) to sing its praises, pump it as a revelation, scare the children, and treat the seller of said pig like a savvy misunderstood unrealistic genius who’s heart is in the right place, i.e. you’ve gotta Haggle!

#2 – Thus, to get the price you really wanted all along from the suckers who never wanted any such pig, you send in a ‘reasonable’ and thoughtful ‘moderate’, to propose a much more ‘reasonable’ and ‘informed’ “Green-New-Deal” alternative. Which the Celeb-Media will openly embrace, in the spirit of global inclusion, and ecumenical ‘bi-partisanship’, and, “Oh look Dorothy! We can make the political system work for the people!”

Thus people who never wanted any pig, are conned to buy a stupid pig for $75 anyway to make the endlessly harping occasionally-coherant nutjobs go away.

But everyone has failed to notice that this is a topic that has no real-world reason to even be floated, let alone discussed as national prime-time ultra-left-celeb-media current affairs, let alone to be adopted as any sort of good government policy path, in any way, shape or form. They just hitched up the Trojan Horse full of enemy and pending urban destruction and towed it inside the city wall!

There’s zero physical reason for any “Green New Deal” to exist.

The whole thing is a scam, there is no material substance behind the claims of its proponents. It is imaginary, a fantasy created for fools, a mere audacious scam, to sell one very over-rated and thoroughly over-priced diseased old pig to fools who never wanted any such pig. And who have no use for it. But who are being conned into buying a less expensive unnecessary unwanted pig, anyway.

An outright rejection of the whole concept of a “Green New Deal” is the only proper response to such a vile and overt political scam, hidden in plain sight. A scam of a whole country and of a global civilization, whole will be expected to follow lemming-like over the cliff to avoid a totally imaginary and non-existent pending planetary apockyclips.

Tar and feather them! Boot them out of the swamp if they dare propose to haggle-out a ‘reasonable’ and ‘informed’ alternative, within such ultra-lefty-celeb-media as they’re all just another part of the scam operation’s dynamic.

Reject 100% of it.

NO DEAL!

Anyone who proposes it or pretends it’s something to be talking about gets no further votes.

ferd berple
March 26, 2019 11:13 am

Thus people who never wanted any pig, are conned to buy a stupid pig for $75 anyway
==≠=========
Reminds me of gas stations raising the price to $1.50 a liter. When the price drops back to $1.30 you are happy to buy. But the month before, you were outraged at having to pay $1.299 .

%d bloggers like this: